Thanks to you and Qimmik for your help. I keep getting confused on this score because (a) the Perseus search engine (which I know I shouldn't really use, but sometmes I'm too lazy/feeble to lug out my full LSJ) shows ὥρμητο as probably imperfect here, and (b) with most verbs Thucydides generally uses the imperfect in a context such as this.

I think ὥρμητο (from ὁρμάω) here must be imperfect in sense - 'he made ready to go to the aid [of Chios]' - but, if so, I don't understand the form. Given both Smyth's rules on contraction, and his paradigms of contracted verbs, shouldn't the form be ὥρματο? Why is there an eta where I would have expected an alpha?

Can anyone help with this? Apologies for raising it again, and for my imperfect (!) knowledge of the minutiae of accidence - I'm conscious that I may well be missing something which is very obvious to sharper minds.

Best wishes,

John

I'm confused about one thing though. (I was a bit lazy and just followed Qimmik's lead and also remembered that we had been down this path before Qimmik arrived on the scene.) Tufts Perseus gives:

I must admit I couldn't see why ὥρμητο should be pluperfect at 8.40.3, or in a number of other places in Thucydides. I'm familiar with his use of the pluperfect for certain verbs where 'he had become ...' is tantamount to 'he was [still in a state of] ...' (Smyth 1952); it's also the case that he sometimes uses the pluperfect to denote something vividly as being the immediate consequence of something else (Smyth 1953). However, both here and elsewhere, I couldn't really get either of these uses out of ὥρμητο, which led me to incline towards its being an imperfect form. As my posts have made clear, I've struggled to work out how it could be from Smyth, but your citation of ἐχρῆτο leads me to think that ὥρμητο may be imperfect after all.

I've now found that Smyth (394) gives a list of ten -άω verbs which use η where we would expect α. The list includes χρῶμαι, but not ὁρμάω: I wonder if the latter should be added.

LSJ give this form as the perfect of ὁρμάω: pf. “ὥρμημαι” S.El.70, E. El.340, Th.6.33, etc. ὥρμητο is the pluperfect, formed by adding augment (which doesn't change the initial long vowel, as Smyth indicates) and a secondary ending directly to the perfect middle stem ὥρμη-.

If ὥρμητο were imperfect, formed by an unusual contraction of ά + ετο > ητο, the eta would have a circumflex accent because the accent on the uncontracted form would fall on ά, following the normal rule that on finite verbal forms the "recessive" accent recedes as far back as possible--to the penult if the ultima is long and to the antepenult if the ultima is short (as it is here, since the final o micron is short), but no further back than the antepenult.

Smyth 171-2 explains what happens to the accent in contracted forms:

171. Contraction.—If either of the syllables to be contracted had an accent, the contracted syllable has an accent. Thus:

a. A contracted antepenult has the acute: φιλεόμενος ῀ φιλούμενος.

b. A contracted penult has the circumflex when the ultima is short; the acute, when the ultima is long: φιλέουσι ῀ φιλοῦσι, φιλεόντων ῀ φιλούντων.

c. A contracted ultima has the acute when the uncontracted form was oxytone: ἑσταώς ῀ ἑστώς; otherwise, the circumflex: φιλέω ῀ φιλῶ.

N. 1.—A contracted syllable has the circumflex only when, in the uncontracted form, an acute was followed by the (unwritten) grave (155, 156). Thus, Περικλέὴς ῀ Περικλῆς, τι_μάὼ ῀ τι_μῶ. In all other cases we have the acute: φιλὲόντων ῀ φιλούντων, βεβὰώς ῀ βεβώς.

N. 2.—Exceptions to 171 are often due to the analogy of other forms (236 a, 264 e, 279 a, 290 c, 309 a).

172. If neither of the syllables to be contracted had an accent, the contracted syllable has no accent: φίλεε ῀ φίλει, γένεϊ ῀ γένει, περίπλοος ῀ περίπλους. For exceptions, see 236 b.

Since ὥρμητο is accented on the first syllable, the η cannot be a contraction of α + ε. That would imply an uncontracted form in which the accent had receded to the ante-antepenult (pro-proparoxytone), an impossibility in Greek: *ὥρμαετο

Maybe there is another possibility: that for hundreds of years editors of the text have been accenting ὡρμῆτο incorrectly, failing to recognize the irregularly contracted imperfect.

But I'd sooner accept ὥρμητο as "vivid" use of the pluperfect: "he had set himself in motion" = "he was on his way to help the Chians" or "he was off to help the Chians." The imperfect seems less appropriate here: "He was setting out . . . " If the emphasis were on "setting out", rather than "being on his way", the aorist would seem more appropriate, but ὥρμητο is clearly not aorist.

Qimmik - many thanks for your very full post. I must confess that my knowledge of accentuation is sketchy, but I'm quite happy to accept what you say on this score.

Your explanation of the use of the pluperfect here may be correct, but I have two problems:

(i) I think Thucydides would have been at least as likely to use an inchoative imperfect ('proceeded to ...'), which is very common in his work - indeed, Smyth (sect. 1900) cites Thucydides 7.51 for this usage;

(ii) as I've mentioned, I've raised a similar query in the past about Thucydides' use of ὥρμητο elsewhere. If it is pluperfect in all these instances, one might have expected LSJ or the commentaries to draw attention to the common use of the pluperfect with this verb, but I can't see anything about this.

I suppose that, when time permits, I should go back and check the accentuation of those other examples!

John W. wrote:Qimmik - many thanks for your very full post. I must confess that my knowledge of accentuation is sketchy, but I'm quite happy to accept what you say on this score.

Your explanation of the use of the pluperfect here may be correct, but I have two problems:

(i) I think Thucydides would have been at least as likely to use an inchoative imperfect ('proceeded to ...'), which is very common in his work - indeed, Smyth (sect. 1900) cites Thucydides 7.51 for this usage;

(ii) as I've mentioned, I've raised a similar query in the past about Thucydides' use of ὥρμητο elsewhere. If it is pluperfect in all these instances, one might have expected LSJ or the commentaries to draw attention to the common use of the pluperfect with this verb, but I can't see anything about this.

I suppose that, when time permits, I should go back and check the accentuation of those other examples!

Best wishes,

John

You can see the accentuation for alpha contract verbs falling on the penult for both forms in the Mastronarde tables above. I'm glad Qimmik is around to set the standard. I actually know enough about accentuation to have figured it out, but I was too deferential to Perseus.

As for commentaries, note that Tucker does feel it needs to be given a gloss and he does point to 8.11.3 where the perfect participle clearly occurs. And an inchoative imperfect has a different meaning. That marks a beginning, while the pluperfect marks a result. And looking at the passage, it certainly seems like Thucydides is making the point not just that Astyochus was in a certain state of mind, but that the because of the very recent events has just changed his mind and resolved himself. Seems like a perfect place for a (plu)perfect! Hasn't he just changed his mind? Have I read it correctly? If so, then we can compare with other cases where somebody changes their mind. I'll toy with a search by ending on the Belgian site.

Many thanks, pster. You're right to say that Astyochus has just changed his mind. In chapter 32, the Chians refused to go along with his plans and contribute ships to help bring about the revolt of Lesbos; in the following chapter, Astyochus left them, 'after making many threats against the Chians to the effect that assuredly he would not come to their rescue, should they be in any need'. In chapter 40, under pressure from both the Chians themselves and the allies, he does a volte face, and decides after all to go to the aid of Chios. So you may well be right about the rationale for the pluperfect here.

The example in the pefect at 8.11.3 I translate as: 'while they were still in this mood of eagerness' (lit. = 'with them having become eager'), which seems to me to refer to the continuation of a state of mind.

Of course I made it easy on myself by forgetting the mp forms which of course come in a half dozen different flavors of ending.

At 1.138, we have:

...κρῖναι ἱκανῶς οὐκ ἀπήλλακτο...

Cameron points out that this is a pluperfect. He translates it as:

...he was not removed from judging competently...

And he approves of Lattimore's translation:

...he was not incapacitated from judging accurately...

He refers the reader to Smyth 1952 and LSJ s.v. B.II.6. The use of the pluperfect in that passage seems trickier as it is a negative! Perhaps it is wrapped up with the understatement somehow.

--------------------------------

Back to your original query, Smyth 1953 may very well be relevant:

1953. Pluperfect of Immediate Occurrence.—The pluperfect may denote that a past action occurred so immediately or suddenly that it was accomplished almost at the same moment as another action: ὡς δὲ ἐλήφθησαν, ἐλέλυντο αἱ σπονδαί and when they were captured the truce was (already) at an end T. 4.47 (the fact of their capture was equivalent to the immediate rupture of the truce).

In Book 8 Alcibiades is trying to engineer his recall to Athens by arranging for the overthrow of the Athenian democracy, and its replacement by an oligarchy. The 'carrot' he is using to tempt the Athenian troops on Samos to support this is the prospect of Persian aid against the Lacedaemonians, and in particular of pay from the Persian King. The reaction when this message is conveyed to the troops by Alcibiades' agents is described in 8.48.3:

'The common throng, though initially somewhat aggrieved at what was being done, remained inactive because [ ] ...'

My translation omits the part of the Greek text in bold. The problem is how to take εὔπορον here. There seem to be three schools of thought:

(i) both Tucker and Goodhart take it to mean the 'comfortableness' or 'ease' which the troops would enjoy as a result of the pay from the King;

(ii) one translator or commentator (I can't recall who) takes it as referring to 'the abundance of their hopes of pay from the King', possibly with an ironic implication that, while their hopes might be abundant, the pay might not necessarily prove to be so;

(iii) in his 1848 edition, Bothe translates this clause as: 'spe captum stipendii persici facile adipiscendi'. A similar view seems to be taken by Lattimore in his translation, which reads: '... because of its expectations that the pay from the king would be easy to get'.

I currently incline to option (iii), and in my own transation I render it as '... because its hope for pay from the King seemed readily achievable'; however, I'd welcome your views as to which of the three options I've mentioned above (or any other which may occur to you) seems the most plausible.

Interestingly, another couple of instances of εὔπορος occur shortly after. At the start of 8.48.4 we find καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἄλλοις ἐφαίνετο εὔπορα καὶ πιστά, which I translate as: 'While to the rest the proposals seemed easy to effect and trustworthy'; this may support option (iii) above. Further on in 8.48.4 there is βασιλεῖ τε οὐκ εὔπορον εἶναι, which seems to mean 'for the King it was not advantageous'.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Best wishes,

John

Last edited by John W. on Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was going to write that τὸ εὔπορον left me in aporia, but on further consideration, I think you're on the right track: (iii) seems best. For τὸ εὔπορον τῆς ἐλπίδος, literally, "the ease of their hope of pay from the King," I would suggest "the ease with which they hoped to obtain pay from the King". Perhaps "hoped" might be better translated "expected", and, if we detect a note of irony, we might translate the whole expression: "because of the apparent ease with which they expected to obtain pay from the King".

(ii) could be right, taking "abundance" to refer to the amount of pay -- "the abundance of their expectancy of pay from the King."

(i) -- the well-being [that would result from realization] of their hope/expectation of pay from the King.

On balance, (iii) seems most natural, to me at least, as I interpret it. But whoever said Thucydides' style was natural?

Yes, I did see the LSJ entry, thanks; this does seem to support option (iii), though as Qimmik says, there is no prima facie reason why εὔπορον here couldn't relate to the other sense of the noun.

Of the three options identified so far, I still incline to option (iii), with option (ii) also a possibility; option (i) does not seem to me terribly convincing, despite its endorsement by Goodhart and Tucker.

Hobbes has: "Though the multitude were grieved with this proceeding for the present, yet for the great hope they had of the king's pay they stirred not."

Therefore, he supports ii.

Where do you get "seemed", John?

Also, I think there is less of a difference between 'great hope' or 'abundance of hope' and Lattimore's, 'expectations that the pay from the king would be easy to get,' than may seem by dividing it into three choices. After all, isn't great hope for something usually tied to its being easy to get? Hope is connected to something we perceive as good, either for ourselves or in general. No one hopes for something he thinks will be difficult to get. He may hope for the stamina to endure some difficulty but never hopes for the difficulty itself. I may resign myself to the difficulty or expect a difficulty but I don't hope for it.

With this in mind, I think Hobbes' rendition is the most direct in conveying the thought.

No one hopes for something he thinks will be difficult to get. He may hope for the stamina to endure some difficulty but never hopes for the difficulty itself. I may resign myself to the difficulty or expect a difficulty but I don't hope for it.

The semantic range of ἐλπίς and ἐλπίζω was broader than English "hope." LSJ notes that ἐλπίζω can mean "expect a bad thing," even "fear."

Baker wrote:Hobbes has: "Though the multitude were grieved with this proceeding for the present, yet for the great hope they had of the king's pay they stirred not."

Therefore, he supports ii.

Where do you get "seemed", John?

Also, I think there is less of a difference between 'great hope' or 'abundance of hope' and Lattimore's, 'expectations that the pay from the king would be easy to get,' than may seem by dividing it into three choices. After all, isn't great hope for something usually tied to its being easy to get? Hope is connected to something we perceive as good, either for ourselves or in general. No one hopes for something he thinks will be difficult to get. He may hope for the stamina to endure some difficulty but never hopes for the difficulty itself. I may resign myself to the difficulty or expect a difficulty but I don't hope for it.

With this in mind, I think Hobbes' rendition is the most direct in conveying the thought.

Baker - many thanks for this (and also to Qimmik for his further thoughts).

The 'seemed' in my version was just something I introduced in converting the Greek into idiomatic English - I suppose I could have said (e.g.) 'would be'.

I take Qimmik's point about the range of ἐλπίς, which often in Thucydides means 'expectation' rather than 'hope'.

One further point regarding option (ii). I recall that, a propos Thucydides' comments on Nicias at 7.86.5 (on which I posted a while ago), Dover comments that the Greeks did not speak of 'the virtues' (plural) as we do. I don't know enough about Greek idiom to be sure, but I just wonder whether taking τὸ εὔπορον τῆς ἐλπίδος as meaning 'the abundance of their hopes' might similarly be retrofitting a purely English idiom onto the Greek.

I just wonder whether taking τὸ εὔπορον τῆς ἐλπίδος as meaning 'the abundance of their hopes' might similarly be retrofitting a purely English idiom onto the Greek.

I agree. I think that the translator may have been led astray by the English word "abundance." Without having checked out each of the citations in the LSJ entries for εὔπορος and εὐπορία, they suggest to me that these words have some of the meaning of English "abundance" largely in the specific sense of "material wealth", not just in the sense of "a large quantity." It doesn't seem likely to me that the ὄχλος was expecting to get wealthy from the King's pay -- just to get paid enough to live on for a while. That's why I think Thucydides' focus is on the ease with which they expected to get the pay. As we would say (at least in the US), they thought it would be "easy money." "The ease of their expectation of pay from the King" = "the ease with which they expected to get pay from the King."

Qimmik wrote:Mynott follows (iii): "The mass of troops, whatever their immediate dissatisfactions with these negotiations, kept quiet because of the ready prospect of pay from the King; . . ."

Qimmik - many thanks for this. It's good to know that Mynott endorses our view!

Although it hasn't been mentioned much (if at all) on here, there is another recent translation of Thucydides, by Martin Hammond in the World's Classics series (Oxford; regrettably paperback only). I don't know how this compares with Mynott, but it might be worth a look at some stage.

Following on from the events described in our previous passage, in 8.49 the conspirators on Samos 'made preparations to send Pisander and others to Athens as ambassadors, to negotiate regarding both the return of Alcibiades and the ending of the democracy there'. In 8.53.1 the arrival of these ambassadors in Athens is reported with the words οἱ δὲ μετὰ τοῦ Πεισάνδρου πρέσβεις τῶν Ἀθηναίων ἀποσταλέντες ἐκ τῆς Σάμου ἀφικόμενοι ἐς τὰς Ἀθήνας λόγους ἐποιοῦντο ἐν τῷ δήμῳ. Translators generally seem to render the words in bold along the lines 'the Athenian ambassadors who had been sent from Samos with Pisander'; however, I'm inclined to translate it as 'Pisander and the other Athenian ambassadors who had been sent from Samos', since that is presumably the real meaning (but see below). At 8.56.1, moreover, one finds οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Πείσανδρον Ἀθηναίων πρέσβεις, which one would translate as 'Pisander and the other Athenian ambassadors'. My problem is that I can find no reference to μετὰ + gen. being used in the same way as περὶ + acc. to denote a person and his associates (rather than just the associates themselves). Has anyone encountered such a use of μετὰ + gen., and would it be going too far to translate 8.53.1 as if it were equivalent to περὶ + acc. there?

The only reason - apart from his penchant for variation - I can see why Thucydides might have used μετὰ rather than περὶ at 8.53.1 would be if it was the other ambassadors (i. e. excluding Pisander) who made the speeches to the people, with Pisander himself holdng off until his dramatic intervention later in chapter 53; but perhaps I'm reading too much into it with this suggestion.

[with genitive] "indicating community of action and serving to join two subjects, Κλεομένης μετὰ Ἀθηναίων C. and the Athenians, Th.1.126"

This seems close enough, doesn't it?

Qimmik - many thanks. I'm familiar with this construction, but hadn't spotted the read-across to my query. I think, as you suggest, that it's probably close enough to embolden me to translate 8.53.1 as 'Pisander and the other Athenian ambassadors who had been sent from Samos'.

So I am scrambling to to get ready for my trip to Sicily in September which of course means reading as much history as I can. Getting up to the Mafia seems out of the question. My goal is to make it to the Normans. And the minimum is to at least get to the Byzantines. So far, I have covered all the prehistory and the Greek colonization. Now I'm up to the Peloponnesian War and this sentence in particular:

καὶ ἄλλοι—it is impossible to explain these words with certainty. The reference appears to be to the Sicels, but it is a strange way of designating them. καὶ ἄλλα is read by some, but (1) it is doubtful if ἄλλα ἐπολέμουν is a possible constr., and (2) even so, the change of subject in the antithetic clause—ἃ δὲ μάλιστα ἄξια κτλ.—is surprising. It is clear that Thuc. felt little interest in the affairs of Sicily in this year. The capture of Messena was the only important event.

Smith:

καὶ ἄλλοι kte(.: if the text is in order, καὶ ἄλλοι must be regarded as the antithesis to καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ Σικελιῶται καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ξὺν τοῖς σφετέροις ξυμμάχοις, and as referring to the Sicels (see on c. 103. 2). But supposing that Thuc. really intended to speak of the Sicels, it would be strange that he should have designated these so vaguely. Besides, a consideration of the especial warlike undertakings of the Sicels—and only of these could one think, since below it is said, καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ξὺν τοῖς σφετέροις ξυμμάχοις (cf. c. 103. 3)—would be quite out of place. Against Pp.'s conjecture (approved by Cl. and others), καὶ ἄλλα, it may be urged that, aside from the fact that τὰ ἄλλα ξυνεπολέμει in i. 65. 10 is not sufficient support for such a const. as ἄλλα πολεμεῖν, even in Pp.'s text the subj. of the following rel. clause (ἃ δὲ . . . ἀντιπόλεμοι) does not agree with that of the first clause; whereas only with identity of subj. could the antithesis between less important and more important events have been emphasized in the manner assumed by Pp. As it seems, in the traditional text two separate sentences of Thucydides are united in one, namely, ἐπολέμουν μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι, ὡς ἑκάστοις ξυνέβαινεν, ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ξὺν τοῖς σφετέροις ξυμμάχοις and ἐπολέμουν μὲν ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ Σικελιῶται ἐπ̓ ἀλλήλους στρατεύοντες (“there warred indeed in Sicily also the Siceliots themselves, fighting against one another”). The latter sent., which, though shorter, is clearer, and with which ἃ δὲ κτἑ. more naturally connects, seems to be the author's later conception.—2.

ξυνέβαινεν: sc. πολεμεῖν. Kr. Spr. 55, 4, 11.—

αὐτοὶ οἱ Σικελιῶται ἐπ̓ ἀλλήλους στρατεύοντες: there is no account of such conflicts in Thuc., not even in iv. 25. 53 μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο οἱ μὲν ἐν τῇ Σικελίᾳ Ἕλληνες ἄνευ τῶν Ἀθηναίων κατὰ γῆν ἐστράτευον ἐπ̓ ἀλλήλους.—4. λόγου μάλιστα ἄξια: that Thuc. did not communicate all even of the former events in Sicily, in which the Athenians took part, but only certain selected ones, may be inferred from his remark about the death of Charoeades (7).—5.

πρὸς τοὺς Ἀθηναίους οἱ ἀντιπόλεμοι: in spite of this announcement there is neither in this chapter, nor in c. 99, an account of these undertakings.—6.

The same summer divers others, as they had several occasions, made war in Sicily; so also did the Sicilians amongst themselves and the Athenians with their confederates. But I will make mention only of such most memorable things as were done either by the confederates there with the Athenians or against the Athenians by the enemy.

1910 Translation:

During the same summer different operations were carried on by the different belligerents in Sicily; by the Siceliots themselves against each other, and by the Athenians and their allies: I shall however confine myself to the actions in which the Athenians took part, choosing the most important.

Hobbes and Smith see antithesis here. The 1910 translation doesn't. I myself have never understood kai. So I want to ask you folks how you understand the kais workings here just from a grammatical point of view. After you tell me what you think, I will add a bit of historical insight about the situation in Sicily and we can see if that makes any difference. I believe that for Th., the Σικελιῶται are inhabitants of the island be they one of the three indigenous groups, Greek, or Carthaginian while the Σικελοί are the easternmost of the three indigenous groups.

So it is really a long winded question about kai. John, how did you translate it?

Here's a suggestion: an antithesis between (1) ἐπολέμουν μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι ... and (2) καὶ αὐτοὶ οἱ Σικελιῶται ... καὶ οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι. The first two καὶ are "both . . . and": the expression is like ἄλλοι τε καὶ..., which can be translated "especially". The third καὶ joins Σικελιῶται and Ἀθηναῖοι.

"...there was fighting in Sicily among various parties [ὡς ἑκάστοις ξυνέβαινεν -- as it happened to occur to each], especially the Sicilians among themselves and the Athenians along with their allies."

The first element ἐπολέμουν μὲν καὶ ἄλλοι . . . was perhaps too long and complex to put τε at the end, so he wrote καὶ ... καὶ.

But maybe he's a little imprecise here because, apart from what he goes on to discuss in detail, he doesn't think the warfare going on in Sicily was worth writing about.

By the way, isn't it 3.90, not 6.90?

Last edited by Qimmik on Tue Aug 06, 2013 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

'In the same summer others also were fighting in Sicily, in whatever circumstances applied to each of them, as well as the Siceliots themselves (campaigning against each other), and the Athenians with their allies; ...'

In other words, I've taken the three instances of καὶ as marking three contrasted groups: (i) 'others' (unspecified, but presumably some of the 'barbarian' Sicels, as opposed to the Hellenic Siceliots); (ii) the Siceliots; and (iii) the Athenians with their allies. Thucydides of course goes on to say that he'll only mention actions involving group (iii).

May I interweave our latest Thucydidean discussion with another problem?

In 8.85 we learn that the Persian satrap in Ionia, Tissaphernes, is sending an ambassador to Lacedaemon to rebut allegations, by the Milesians and the Syracusan general Hermocrates, that he is undermining the Peloponnesian cause. (There is in fact some truth in this, since - partly at the prompting of Alcibiades - Tissaphernes has been seeking to play one side off against the other, and to equalise the power of the Athenians and Peloponnesians so that neither achieves an overall predominance. As part of this wider strategy, Tissaphernes has been reducing the pay he is providing for the Peloponnesian fleet in his territory; this reduction in pay was chiefly opposed by Hermocrates, as recorded in chapters 29 and 45 in Book 8.)

'He was consistently hostile to him over the giving of pay; and finally, when Hermocrates had
been exiled from Syracuse and other generals - Potamis, Myscon and Demarchus - for the Syracusans' ships had arrived at Miletus, Tissaphernes greatly intensified his attacks on Hermocrates, as he was now an exile, and made other accusations as well as this, that it was because he had once asked him for money, and had not received it, that Hermocrates had displayed hostility towards him.'

The problem relates to the bit in bold: is the meaning that Hermocrates was hostile to Tissaphernes, or vice versa? Most of the big commentaries (Krueger, Poppo-Stahl, Classen-Steup and de Romilly) take αὐτὸν as referring to Tissaphernes, and αὐτῷ to Hermocrates; on this basis, one would translate as: 'Hermocrates was consistently hostile to Tissaphernes ...'. Gomme does not comment, beyond noting the different referents for αὐτὸν and αὐτῷ.

Goodhart's edition of Book 8 follows the view of Kueger et al.; Tucker, on the other hand, takes αὐτὸν as referring to Hermocrates, and αὐτῷ to Tissaphernes, 'since Tissaphernes is the subject of the passage'. Lattimore's 1998 translation takes the same view, as I see does Mynott in his recent version ('Tissaphernes had felt hostile to Hermocrates ever since the issue of the wage-payments').

One possible argument in favour of taking αὐτῷ as Hermocrates is that, at the end of the passage quoted above, the ἔχθραν referred to is Hermocrates' towards Tissaphernes. Against that, I wonder whether it would be best to link the opening ἔχθρα δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἦν αὐτῷ αἰεί ποτε with the subsequent ἐνέκειτο ὁ Τισσαφέρνης φυγάδι ὄντι ἤδη τῷ Ἑρμοκράτει πολλῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον - if so, the general sense would be: 'Tissaphernes always felt hostility towards Hermocrates over the issue of pay, and now that Hermocrates was an exile Tissapernes assailed him more vigorously than ever'. I find this interpretation attractive, even though it's not the one favoured by the 'big hitters' among the commentators, but I'd welcome your views.

1) The thing that miffed me about all of this was the idea found in Smith that "if the text is in order, καὶ ἄλλοι must be regarded...as referring to the Sicels". The Greeks had been in Sicily for over two centuries. In the beginning, their wives were pure Sicel, as Greek women didn't make the voyage. The Sicels are fairly Hellenized and the Greeks fairly Sicelized. Indeed, in terms of DNA, it seems after 10 plus generations they would have to be mostly Sicel. (We are leaving aside the other two smaller ethnic groups.) Now as you move away from the coast, things become less Greek and more Sicel. And in a particular context, it might make a lot of sense to talk about Sicels and things Sicel. But they are not your typical Barbarians. Indeed, the great Sicel patriot-freedom fighter Ducetios, when he founds the city of Kalê Aktê, does so after returning from exile in Greece and with a group half made up of Corinthians. And I know of no case where they fought amongst themselves after the Greeks showed up. It pretty much seems as though they had their hands full with the Greeks. It strains credulity to think of their being any significant intra Sicel squabble and Thucydides having any knowledge of it.

2) In light of 1) I am really inclined to prefer a reading like the 1910 translation where the alloi part of the sentence is in apposition to what follows.

3) What exactly doesὡς ἑκάστοις ξυνέβαινεν mean? We have many different translations floating around and neither Marchant nor Smith think it is noteworthy. How can that be?

pster - I take your point, but Thucydides at any rate does distinguish (rightly or wrongly) between the Sicels and Siceliots.

I must admit I struggle with the 'appositional' view. What would such a construction add to the sentence? Why not just distinguish between the two groups - the Siceliots fighting among themselves, and actions involving the Athenians and their allies - with a simple τε ... καὶ construction? To me, at present, the degree of elaboration onIy makes sense if three groups are involved.

I think ὡς ἑκάστοις ξυνέβαινεν simply means 'in whatever circumstances applied to each of them', i.e. 'whatever the nature of their specific conflicts' (in terms of how they arose and were prosecuted).
It seems to go with the ἄλλοι as a (vague) descriptor, paralleling those for the other two groups, so structurally you have:

I think it is fine to distinguish between those Siceliots in the big Greek cities on the coast and those Sicels in the smaller interior towns. Most of the time some Sicel town or some Sicels from some region join in the fighting. They were treated much better by the northern Ionians than the southern Dorians, so typically tend to side against Syracuse. But I'm halfway through Finley's Ancient Sicily and there just hasn't been any purely Sicel on Sicel violence. None. Any Sicel on Sicel violence is ancilliary to some larger struggle involving at least one of the Hellenized costal cities. So, Smith's assertion just seemed to have nothing to do with the Sicily I have been reading about. Segeste does assert itself from time to time, but they are Elymes not Sicules. Possibly Th. could be referring to some of their interminable troubles with Selinonte. But things out west seem pretty quiet circa 427.

If we knew for a fact that apposition is not in play, then I would assume that it was Elymes rather than Sicules fighting at the beginning of that sentence. They do make overtures to Athens and there is even a theory that that famous (unfinished) temple was built to seduce the Athenians into helping them. While Th. may distinguish between Sicels and Siceliots, here he opts for alloi, which lends some support to this line.

But the appostion in the 1910 translation gave me hope that it would be much easier to massage the grammar than the history.